This topic comes up a lot. It’s the things skeptics shouldn’t talk about topic. The logic that is often used on one side of this argument, if followed to the end would surmise that we shouldn’t even be talking about this topic at all.
Cue crickets chirping.
But nah, screw that. I say we should talk!
To be specific, the topic that often comes up is whether or not skeptics should apply the tools of skepticism, such as logic, rationality, critical thinking and the lessons of science to topics outside the traditional realm of organized skepticism and whether or not organized skepticism should focus it’s energy on these untraditional issues.
In other words:
Should we as skeptics even bother discussing topics like feminism, sexism, racism, health care, world hunger, human rights etc or should we focus our energy only on specific, traditional skeptical issues such as the existence of Bigfoot, the whereabouts of the Loch Ness Monster, the likelihood of alien visitation and the probability of psychic ability? Are we wasting our resources, diluting the skeptic pool or alienating (no pun intended) our audience by addressing issues that were not the focus of the forefathers of skepticism?
Or are we bringing the wisdom and the tools of skepticism to modern day issues and a potential new audience?
*featured art by me.